Iran's Incongruent Congruence

There must be a medical term for what happens to a person’s ability to speak truthfully when he becomes an ambassador or a government spokesman. A case in point is the new U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker. His is a difficult and largely thankless task, but he did little to help himself with his glass half-full assessment of yesterday’s initial round of diplomatic talks between Iran, Iraq, and the United States. There is nothing wrong with a glass half-full perspective when the facts offer even a ray of hope, but when the glass is completely empty, as was the case in these negotiations over Iraq’s security, it is deceptive and counterproductive to pretend that progress was made when it clearly was not.

The diplomatic talks between the U.S. and Iran, after nearly thirty years of official silence, focused on the security and stability of Iraq’s federal government and Iran’s role as helper or hindrance. Ambassador Crocker reportedly confronted Iran’s Ambassador to Iraq Hassan Kazemi Qomi on Iran’s funding, support, and personnel involvement with terrorists and “militant groups” that continue to attack U.S., British, and Iraqi troops throughout Iraq. Ambassador Crocker also pointed out to his Iranian counterpart that many of the firearms, IED’s and other weapons used to attack allied forces are Iranian and arrived in Iraq directly from Iran.

Had this been a glass half-full diplomatic discussion, Iranian Ambassador Qomi would have stated something to the effect of “We don’t know how our weapons keep popping up mysteriously in Iraq, but we can assure you will do everything to find out who in our country is behind this and cut off their (insert whatever limb would be appropriate for weapons smuggling here) as a show of good faith” or similar. However, this was not a glass half-full discussion. Here is the (UK) Times online summary of the Iranian response:

The Iranians, whose leadership has long attacked the US as the Great Satan, rejected such accusations and raised their own fears, calling the US presence in Iraq an occupation. Tehran also criticized efforts to train the Iraqi Army and police as inadequate.

The Islamic Republic suggested creating a three-way system, comprising Iran, Iraq and the United States, to coordinate security.

Clearly, no headway was made in that exchange, since the U.S. insists that Iran is the cause of stability and terrorism in Iraq, while Iran denies any involvement and blames the U.S. for inviting attack by its mere presence in Iraq. There was no glass half-full common ground to agree on, but don’t tell that to Ambassador Crocker. After the rebuttal of each of his arguments, Crocker’s description of the “progress” made leaves one wondering to what discussions he was referring when he toasted the talks with this half-full glass:

There was pretty good congruence right down the line in support of a secure, stable, democratic, federal Iraq in control of its own security, at peace with its neighbours.

I am sure Ambassador Crocker is a well-educated man, but perhaps his schooling did not include the proper use of the word “congruence.” The term literally means agreeing, or being in harmony. The two sides did not agree on Iran’s role in Iraq, thus there was no congruence down that or any line. The only item on which the Americans and Iranians agree is that it would be beneficial for the region if Iraq were controlled by a stable centralized government. However, the “congruent” line diverges with who would control Iraq’s government. Iran is doing all it can overtly and covertly to undermine the Iraqi parliament that contains a mixture of Shia, Sunni, and Kurdish elements. What Iran wants is a stable non-democratic Shia Iraq that could be a natural ally or potentially an expansionist target. The mullahs fear democracy in general and would be terrified of a democratic Iraq on its border. Already fearing the spread of western influence and ideas of freedom seeping into its radical Islamic culture, the mullahs cannot afford to have a successful, free Iraq residing next door. “Keeping up with the Jones’s” would take on a whole new meaning if Iranians could point to a free neighbor and ask, “why can’t we have what they have?” The U.S. wants precisely that scenario to develop but Iran dreads it and fights it at every turn. The two sides could not be more incongruent.

The only item on which Iran and the U.S. agreed in these historic talks was to disagree. The Iraqis, who set up the talks, soft-pedaled the animosity between Iran and the U.S. Ali al-Dabbagh, the Iraqi government spokesman, offered this remarkable interpretation of the meeting results, “It shows that both countries are looking at getting the problems solved.” That may be true, but both sides are also looking to solve the problems at the disadvantage or destruction of the other. Until Iran ceases its role as trainer, financier, and arms dealer to “militants” and terrorists in Iraq, and abandons its suicidal sprint toward nuclear weapons, America’s glass of optimism for Iran will and must remain decidedly empty.

Iran's Bribery Worse Than Bombs

Iran is at war with the United States, allied forces, and the Iraqi government. What other appropriate term could be applied when a nation funds, trains, equips, and transports terrorist insurgents into Iraq to wage war against U.S. and allied troops? How could it be considered anything short of war when a nation seizes 15 members of an allied naval crew well within Iraqi sovereign territorial waters and holds them hostage? Does a nation engage in an act of war against the entire world when it dismissively ignores UN WMD non-proliferation policies and sanctions by blindly pursuing production of nuclear weapons? Is it not war when one nation blatantly bribes elected officials of another nation with the expressed intention of destroying a democratically elected government before it can adequately defend itself?

When taken in the aggregate, all of these behaviors by the current Iranian regime constitute an undeclared, but all too real war against America, Iraq, and those who fight for the democratically elected Iraqi government. The last of the insidiously aggressive acts listed above was exposed today in an exclusive article by New York Sun reporter Eli Lake, submitted from Baghdad. War critics like to evoke emotion and false imagery by using terms such as “quagmire” and “civil war” to describe the war in Iraq and why we should abandon it. These politically opportunistic terms, however, were discredited by a courageous member of Iraq’s democratically elected parliament, Mithal al-Alusi.

Al-Alusi, a father of two sons killed by terrorists in Iraq in 2005, went on record with Lake to explain the intimate inner conflicts occurring in Iraq, and to identify a major contributor to the unrest in Iraq: Iran. American officials have long complained of Iranian interference in Iraq, most notably through pouring funds, arms, and terrorists into Iraq. Al-Alusi, however, specifically identified a high level Iranian diplomat engaged in a less explosive, but no less lethal, effort to undermine the Iraqi government.

According to al-Alusi, Iran’s Ambassador to Iraq, Hassam Kazemi Qomi, offered him large sums of cash through an intermediary and invited al-Alusi to visit Tehran and meet with President Ahmadinejad and the ruling mullahs. Al-Alusi told Lake that such offers have been made to most of the members of the Iraqi parliament, but he was the first elected official to speak publicly about Iran’s effort to destroy the fledgling democracy or so thoroughly corrupt it through bribery that it would function as an Iranian puppet. From the NY Sun exclusive:

The fact that Iran would be interested in buying Mr. al-Alusi and his single vote in parliament is in itself a sign of both this politician's growing appeal to Iraqis and the Iranian strategy to diversify their influence to include politicians outside the Shiite bloc of religious parties that wield a narrow majority in the parliament.

Mr. al-Alusi said yesterday that he believed the soft influence of Iranians through bribes and economic leverage is even more dangerous than the role the Islamic Republic plays in facilitating and supporting the terrorists here.

And in this respect Mr. al-Alusi is not alone. A senior Iraqi minister here last week, who asked to speak anonymously, said that it is well known that Iranians are paying off both Sunni and Shiite legislators. "Any Iraqi who takes this money should be ashamed, but many are taking it," the minister said.

War critics have repeatedly expressed “no confidence votes” against President Bush and the Iraqi government, and have stated their belief that the Iraqis are incapable of sustaining a democracy. If decisive actions are not taken against Iranian interference in Iraq, these critics will be proven right but not because Iraqis were incapable. The Iraqi democracy will dissolve due to Iran’s overt and, until now, covert warfare against it. It has become clear that victory in Iraq cannot be achieved without some form of decisive containment of Iran’s aggressive actions in Iraq.

Brave parliamentarians such as al-Alusi are a rarity, and many will take the money offered by Tehran. America must not allow this Middle Eastern democracy, purchased as it was with American, allied, and Iraqi blood, to devolve into an Iranian puppet purchased by high level diplomatic bribery. Congress incessantly complains about “special interest groups” wielding too much influence on government. Now it must take action to protect the Iraqi government from Iran, the world’s most prolific terrorist special interest group.